Talk:The Boat Race 1864

The Boat Race 1864 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 31, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Rowing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles

To-do list:

Featured Articles:

Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status.
1. Get article relisted to 'good article status'
2. Put through another round of peer review, see here
3. Nominate for featured status
Ditto for Henley Royal Regatta, The Boat Race , Steve Redgrave

Stubs: see here..

Tag {{Rowing-stub}} onto all rowing stub articles so we can keep track of them.
Expand stubs to at least start class.

Image requests: see here..
Article requests: see here..

Write bios for World Rowing champions (see the redlinks in the templates)

Document FISA database errors

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 1864/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another boat race? Why not, eh?

Lead[edit]

Compared to some of the other boat race articles, the lead is just a little bit short. I think it's probably best to make things consistent eg: "The nth Boat Race took place on [date]. Held annually, it is a side-by-side rowing event between Oxford and Cambridge etc etc" Then do the specifics of this one.
Have made some changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

"in order to reduce the threat to the race from the regular interruptions from steamers" - there's a lot of clauses and prepositions in that sentence. I wonder if we could break things up a bit. Maybe "in order to reduce interruptions by steamer traffic" would work better?
Reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mortlake should be wikilinked
Thus linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crews[edit]

"Cambridge's crew, however, was tall" - I've got a niggling feeling that "tall" in this context is one of those words to watch, certainly when compared to Robert Pershing Wadlow, Yao Ming or a giraffe, 6' is tall, but not that tall. I think it's best to just stick to the facts.
Really quick one, just have a read of this, yes 6 feet is very tall ... in 1864. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a good point well made, and one I remind myself of every time I bang my head on the doorway of a pub built in the 17th century or earlier! (Still, I couldn't leave that Martinevans123esque "are you having a giraffe" pun) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it. I also like giraffes. So it was a win–win for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Race[edit]

"The Prince of Wales, future King of the United Kingdom Edward VII" - I'm not sure this is consistent on how we name future monarchs in other articles. In Blackwall Tunnel (one of my GAs), Edward VII is wikilinked as "Prince of Wales". Whether this runs contrary to what's in WP:EASTER, I'm not sure.
I don't know, the source just calls him the Prince of Wales, I felt it more appropriate to be specific on which particular one, so arrived at this compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford had restored parity" - "parity"'s a bit flowery, isn't it? How about "Oxford had caught up"?
Not sure I agree. As an engineer, we use "parity" all the time as a commonplace to denote a position of equality or evenness... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I recognise the term from my days as a Z80 assembler programmer, with instructions like JP PE, xxxx ("jump if parity even flag set to address xxxx"), it's just not a word I'd particularly associate with boat racing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, the parity bit. My favourite bit of all time. Have rephrased and added a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" in a time of 21 minutes 40 seconds" - the source says 21 minutes, 4 seconds
Yep, here's a thing, when the official website was moved from boatrace.org to boatraces.org, they messed up some of the results. All of my paper sources disagreed with the "official source" so I emailed them to let them know. Needless to say I got no response, but, just like magic, the numbers have been fixed. And have now been fixed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Nothing else to report, so I'll put this on hold now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the nth time. I appreciate your detailed reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't think the parity thing is a showstopper, and at least we spotted a factual error, which are IMHO the most important things to grab in a GA review. Now passed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]